The Multiple Proceedings rule has become the essence of uncertainty. What exactly does it mean? §325(d) gives the PTO Director the authority to refuse a petition when “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” were previously presented. For IPRs like this one to proceed despite numerous prior rulings in various fora upholding a patent’s validity is a travesty. The facts of this case underscore the mischief that can befall a patent owner under the current practice of the PTAB, enabled by the Federal Circuit… I recently wrote, “[t]he fight goes on to invalidate claims until the patent owner loses and the claims are invalidated.” But that is precisely what the § 325(d) Multiple-Proceedings rule was intended to prevent. And this needs to stop.
The post Supreme Court asked to apply Multiple Proceeding rule to end harassing validity challenges appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Supreme Court asked to apply Multiple Proceeding rule to end harassing validity challenges
No Comments
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- Pardon Me? Levandowski Case Highlights Need for Proactive Approach to Avoid Trade Secret Problems in Hiring
- The Right Choice: IP Stakeholders Emphasize Practical Experience, Strong IP Advocacy in Next USPTO Head
- USPTO Responds to Patent Bar Gender Gap Inquiry, Mulls Changes to Registration Process
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool
Recent Posts
- Pardon Me? Levandowski Case Highlights Need for Proactive Approach to Avoid Trade Secret Problems in Hiring
- The Right Choice: IP Stakeholders Emphasize Practical Experience, Strong IP Advocacy in Next USPTO Head
- USPTO Responds to Patent Bar Gender Gap Inquiry, Mulls Changes to Registration Process
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool